Girl Gives guy AIDS, Guy Beats Her (Hypothetical Scenario)

[Lord MJ]

A hypothetical legal situation that I was discussing a while ago, once again inspired by a Law and Order episode (I really need to stop watching L&O lol) but in this case the scenario is only loosely like to what actually happened in the episode. (Which featured a girl telling a guy that she had AIDS after they had sex and the guy freaking out and accidentally shooting her. The real case in the episode though revolved around an AIDS infected guy deliberately spreading the disease to women via sex, the girl was one of his victims.)

Lets suppose a girl and a guy are having sex. Afterwards (or even during the intercourse) they girl turns to the guy and says, "Guess what? I have AIDS, my life sucks and now your's does too!" In anger the guy immediately starts viciously beating the girl.

Now I wanted to examine the legal implications (and moral implications) in four different scenarios.

Consider the case of

1.) The girl was lying, it was just her cruel idea of a joke.
2.) The girl was telling the truth, she really had AIDS, she had sex with the guy with the intent of infecting him (as can be inferred by the statement, "my life sucks, and now your's does too!") The guy is infected as a result.

Now for both of those cases consider the case of

1.) The girls survives the guy's attack.
2.) The girl dies.

Now to make it even more interesting say the guy is in his 20s but the girl is 16 or 17 and lied about her age.

In each case what will be the legal consequences for both the guy and the girl (in the cases that she lived.)

I would argue that in any of the cases that girl really had AIDS, the guy should get a walk on all charges, if that was me or if I was the defense attorney I would strongly argue justification defense. And I would bring all the pressure to bear for the DA to drop all charges. In addition regardless of weather the guy gets off or is convicted of murder and statutory rape, if I was in that situation I would sue the girl (if she is still alive of course) and her family for every cent that they have. I don't usually believe in suing the pants off people, but I would definitely make an exception in that case.

In the case that she was just joking, well then the girl would certainly be a Darwin Award candidate and it would be great to remove her from the gene pool. But I doubt the guy would be able to get off on the charges in that scenario, but a good Defense Attorney should be able to plea it down to a lenient manslaughter sentence and call it a day.

What do you think?

[Lord MJ]

Oh yeah, almost forgot. Add in Attempted Murder charges for the girl if she happens to survive the guys attack, (and she indeed infect him with AIDS.)

Don't really know what she could be charged with if it was just a joke though.

[Imperial Overlord]

I would argue that in any of the cases that girl really had AIDS, the guy should get a walk on all charges, if that was me or if I was the defense attorney I would strongly argue justification defense. And I would bring all the pressure to bear for the DA to drop all charges. In addition regardless of weather the guy gets off or is convicted of murder and statutory rape, if I was in that situation I would sue the girl (if she is still alive of course) and her family for every cent that they have. I don't usually believe in suing the pants off people, but I would definitely make an exception in that case.

What is this, "the bitch had it coming" defence? You're giving out free walks for homicide over someone telling you something disturbing? Talk about moral leprosy. Going to cap this off by killing some homosexuals for getting on your nerves?

If the girl had unprotected sex and AIDS and did so without telling her partner, she should be charged with a crime like reckless endangerment or the like (I'm not a lawyer). If the guy gets AIDS (and there's a good chance he won't) then the charges are more serious as actual harm was done.

Statutory rape laws and age of consent vary from place to place and if she lied about her age I wouldn't throw the book at him if it was reasonable to believe her.

Assault is assault and beating someone to death is beating someone to death. She's not threatening his life now. Hell, if she has AIDS beating her and get her blood all over the place is only going to increase the likelyhood of him contracting it. There's not justification for this except for revenge and last time I looked most modern legal systems and moral codes didn't revolve around blood feuds.

This entire scenario is repulsive and reeks of misogyny.

[Lord MJ]

I would argue that in any of the cases that girl really had AIDS, the guy should get a walk on all charges, if that was me or if I was the defense attorney I would strongly argue justification defense. And I would bring all the pressure to bear for the DA to drop all charges. In addition regardless of weather the guy gets off or is convicted of murder and statutory rape, if I was in that situation I would sue the girl (if she is still alive of course) and her family for every cent that they have. I don't usually believe in suing the pants off people, but I would definitely make an exception in that case.

What is this, "the bitch had it coming" defence? You're giving out free walks for homicide over someone telling you something disturbing? Talk about moral leprosy. Going to cap this off by killing some homosexuals for getting on your nerves?

If the girl had unprotected sex and AIDS and did so without telling her partner, she should be charged with a crime like reckless endangerment or the like (I'm not a lawyer). If the guy gets AIDS (and there's a good chance he won't) then the charges are more serious as actual harm was done.

Statutory rape laws and age of consent vary from place to place and if she lied about her age I wouldn't throw the book at him if it was reasonable to believe her.

Assault is assault and beating someone to death is beating someone to death. She's not threatening his life now. Hell, if she has AIDS beating her and get her blood all over the place is only going to increase the likelyhood of him contracting it. There's not justification for this except for revenge and last time I looked most modern legal systems and moral codes didn't revolve around blood feuds.

This entire scenario is repulsive and reeks of misogyny.

Well ethically I would agree that beating her down is not justified. So I'm not going to even try to say the act was justified. I would try to argue though that it should be excused. It would depend on how soon the guys retaliation came after being told that she had tried to infect him with AIDS (in this scenario she tells him immediately after or during sex). If the attack came mere seconds after the revalation, then it could be excused on the virtual that he attacked her seconds after being assaulted by a deadly weapon combined with the extreme emotional disturbance resulting from being told by his sex partner that she deliberately tried to infect him with AIDS.

Now say a few minutes passed, and then he attacked her, any justification defense goes out the window, and all that could be done is try to argue mitigating circumstances to get a reduced charge.

If days went by and he attacked the girl out of revenge, then this guy would certainly get his ass handed to him in court, as the defense would only have a sympathy cause to go on, which probably won't amount to much other than getting a less severe sentence than the maximum.

In any case, the whole statutory rape thing should be just completely ignored.

As for the girl, reckless endangerment would be an appropriate charge... if the girl didn't have sex with the guy with the intent of spreading her disease, if she did, then it is definately attempted murder, and the guy dies first, then if I was particularly zealous DA I would hit her with murder charges as well.

[Imperial Overlord]

Beating someone severely, perhaps to death, for telling you something disturbing (you don't even know if its true at that point), excused? No.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Assault is assault and beating someone to death is beating someone to death. She's not threatening his life now. Hell, if she has AIDS beating her and get her blood all over the place is only going to increase the likelyhood of him contracting it. There's not justification for this except for revenge and last time I looked most modern legal systems and moral codes didn't revolve around blood feuds.

Extreme Emotional Disturbance is a legally useable defense in the States for situations like this, and in Canada, I think...

It is thought of as a sort of temporary insanity, where an individual flips out. Common uses are cases like where a guy walks in on his wife and the milkman and shoots them both in a blind rage. It never actually gets the person off, but it will often reduce the sentence.

I think this is a legitimate case where the defense could make the claim that it was the case, and have a chance at success. In addition if the survives, the charge for the guy would probably end up being battery, or aggravated assault, because his intent to kill is not obvious. If she dies, manslaugher 1 or 2.

If she survives she will get hit with an attempted murder charge

[CaptainZoidberg]

Oh yeah, almost forgot. Add in Attempted Murder charges for the girl if she happens to survive the guys attack, (and she indeed infect him with AIDS.)

The probability of AIDS infection isn't 100%, so if I were the guy I wouldn't freak out at the girl, I'd wait and see if I actually had AIDS. Then I'd sue her to death (like you would, of course).

So what would you do if the girl really did have AIDS but he didn't get infected? Same thing as if he got infected?

Don't really know what she could be charged with if it was just a joke though.

Oh yeah, and I don't get why the guy wouldn't get charged. It's not like it was self-defense, it was more of "justice". And vigilante justice isn't protected by law.

[Mr. T]

I think maybe if she did have AIDS an "insane automatism" (sp?) defence might get him off the hook. This defence was used in the movie "A Time to Kill". I believe typically under that kind of defence they're sent to a psychiatric ward, but it's also possible to use it as a defence and be scot free rather then committed to a mental institute.

Insane automatism basically means that extreme events triggered such a temporary mental break down in you that although you did the crime, the court can't hold it against you that you acted the way you did, and you're at no real risk of reoffending. At least that's the jist of it, I may be glossing over some things, highschool law class was a long time ago..

[Alyrium Denryle]

The probability of AIDS infection isn't 100%, so if I were the guy I wouldn't freak out at the girl, I'd wait and see if I actually had AIDS. Then I'd sue her to death (like you would, of course).

So what would you do if the girl really did have AIDS but he didn't get infected? Same thing as if he got infected?

You say that now, but you would probably freak out in one way or another if someone intentionally tried to infect you with the HIV.

In all seriousness I think Internet Rational Actors should be relegated to the same place as internet tough guys. Rational Actor theory is BS. It has always been BS, and it does not apply to emotionally charged situations like this. A person WILL freak out if told that they might have HIV. A person who is biologically prone to violence will freak out violently. There is a reason that doctors dont just hand HIV patients the paper saying they are HIV positive and leave the room. The last time I got tested I went through pre and post-testing counseling. While I was waiting for results even though I knew my chances of being infected were almost zero, I was still nervous as fuck. This coming out of the blue will make anyone go a little batshit. So dont try to pretend you are above that.

Oh yeah, and I don't get why the guy wouldn't get charged. It's not like it was self-defense, it was more of "justice". And vigilante justice isn't protected by law.

If he freaks out right then, it is not vigilante justice. It is freaking out, and there are specific statues in the law that make freaking out like that an affirmative defense in court.

Hell, even vigilante justice can be protected, via jury nullification.

[Mr Bean]

In both cases the correct moral method is to toss the guy into jail for a light to severe sentance depending on the beating(And possible death)

But not before testing the guy for AIDS. If it can be proven that she indeed infected him, even if she was beaten bloody, I'd toss her ass in jail for attempted murder or the equivalent.


This is not the same as "I've poisoned you, you have twelve hours to life"
This is, "I've possibly(40%) infected you with a disease which will kill you five to forty years from now."

[Imperial Overlord]

You say that now, but you would probably freak out in one way or another if someone intentionally tried to infect you with the HIV.

I would definitely freak out. Freaking out and beating someone severely aren't the same thing.

A person who is biologically prone to violence will freak out violently.

That's still a criminal act. Being biologically prone to violence doesn't excuse other homicides.

Oh yeah, and I don't get why the guy wouldn't get charged. It's not like it was self-defense, it was more of "justice". And vigilante justice isn't protected by law.

If he freaks out right then, it is not vigilante justice. It is freaking out, and there are specific statues in the law that make freaking out like that an affirmative defense in court.

Hell, even vigilante justice can be protected, via jury nullification.

1) Sure he could beat her because he freaked out. Charged and convicted.

2) He could beat her for revenge. Really the whole scenario reads like an attempt of "under what conditions can I beat a woman to death with and maybe get away with it." Charged and convicted.

3) Never fond of jury nullification, but that's still happens after a trial. Charged and convicted.

[Alyrium Denryle]

That's still a criminal act. Being biologically prone to violence doesn't excuse other homicides.

This is true. But it is still a mitigating factor in sentencing. He would not get away with it, by any means, but he would get off light compared to a similar unprovoked beating.

1) Sure he could beat her because he freaked out. Charged and convicted.

Oh definitely. Not saying he should not be charged and convicted, whether the cunt dies not not. However were I the DA prosecuting the case, I would try to plead him out on a lesser charge, if she lives, assault rather than attempted murder, manslaughter 2 instead of manslaughter 1.

This is because his intent was not to kill necessarily and a competent defense lawyer could succeed at jury nullification or at bringing my initial charges down to what I plead him out for.

Might as well save the state some time and money.

3) Never fond of jury nullification, but that's still happens after a trial. Charged and convicted.

Not if the Jury nullified

This is not the same as "I've poisoned you, you have twelve hours to life"
This is, "I've possibly(40%) infected you with a disease which will kill you five to forty years from now."

True. It is not the same. but the emotional reaction by your average person, in the heat of the moment, probably would be.

[Lonestar]

I have to agree with Bean, the man should be thrown in jail for assault/Homicide.

Having said that, If it can be reasonable determined thta the girl gave him AIDS, she should be thrown into jail on attempted murder. I'm not sure if there's such a thing as attempted premeditated murder?

[Lord MJ]

I have to agree with Bean, the man should be thrown in jail for assault/Homicide.

Having said that, If it can be reasonable determined thta the girl gave him AIDS, she should be thrown into jail on attempted murder. I'm not sure if there's such a thing as attempted premeditated murder?

In this case it wouldn't really matter if the girl gave him AIDS or even if he has AIDS. The fact that she attempted to infect the guy with AIDS constitutes an Assualt with a deadly weapon and/or Attempted Murder. Intent is the key here. The fact that she failed in her attempt is totally irrelevant as far as the law is concerned.

[Darth Servo]

I have to agree with Bean, the man should be thrown in jail for assault/Homicide.

Having said that, If it can be reasonable determined thta the girl gave him AIDS, she should be thrown into jail on attempted murder. I'm not sure if there's such a thing as attempted premeditated murder?

In this case it wouldn't really matter if the girl gave him AIDS or even if he has AIDS. The fact that she attempted to infect the guy with AIDS constitutes an Assualt with a deadly weapon and/or Attempted Murder. Intent is the key here. The fact that she failed in her attempt is totally irrelevant as far as the law is concerned.

And if she does succeed, are the charges against her increased to Murder 1 should the guy die from AIDS in so many years?

[Alyrium Denryle]

I have to agree with Bean, the man should be thrown in jail for assault/Homicide.

Having said that, If it can be reasonable determined thta the girl gave him AIDS, she should be thrown into jail on attempted murder. I'm not sure if there's such a thing as attempted premeditated murder?

In this case it wouldn't really matter if the girl gave him AIDS or even if he has AIDS. The fact that she attempted to infect the guy with AIDS constitutes an Assualt with a deadly weapon and/or Attempted Murder. Intent is the key here. The fact that she failed in her attempt is totally irrelevant as far as the law is concerned.

And if she does succeed, are the charges against her increased to Murder 1 should the guy die from AIDS in so many years?

They would be if he died very fast... as in, before a guilty verdict. The reason they only charge attempted murder is because for murder, someone has to die before the charge is given...

[Lord MJ]

I have to agree with Bean, the man should be thrown in jail for assault/Homicide.

Having said that, If it can be reasonable determined thta the girl gave him AIDS, she should be thrown into jail on attempted murder. I'm not sure if there's such a thing as attempted premeditated murder?

In this case it wouldn't really matter if the girl gave him AIDS or even if he has AIDS. The fact that she attempted to infect the guy with AIDS constitutes an Assualt with a deadly weapon and/or Attempted Murder. Intent is the key here. The fact that she failed in her attempt is totally irrelevant as far as the law is concerned.

And if she does succeed, are the charges against her increased to Murder 1 should the guy die from AIDS in so many years?

I think that would depend on the state. I'm not a lawyer, but I am sure that some states have a statute of limitations in that if the death occurs too long after the action that caused the death, the defendant can be charged with attempted murder but not murder. (Eg if you beat someone with a baseball bat, but the person doesn't actually die from the injuries until 5 years later, if there is a statute of limitations, you could only be charged with attempted murder.)

Note that most states do not have a statue of limitations on murder, but some do have a statue on how long it takes for the victim to die.

[Sidewinder]

1.) The girl was lying, it was just her cruel idea of a joke.

This joke is comparable to calling a teacher and saying, "I'm gonna let loose with a machine gun at your school and then blow it all to hell." If the girl gets arrested for making a death threat afterwards, she has only herself to blame for her stupidity and/or insanity.

2.) The girl was telling the truth, she really had AIDS, she had sex with the guy with the intent of infecting him (as can be inferred by the statement, "my life sucks, and now your's does too!") The guy is infected as a result.

IIRC, when police arrested a rapist and found a printout of his HIV test (positive) on his person, the rapist was charged with assault with a deadly weapon. If the guy pressed charges, the girl can legally be charged with the same, or at least for reckless endangerment.

1.) The girls survives the guy's attack.

For both scenarios, the guy will likely be convicted for assault, although the jury may be lenient in sentencing him. (This may be the only situation where "She was asking for it," is a viable defense.)

2.) The girl dies.

For both scenarios, the guy will likely be convicted for manslaughter, although the jury may buy the "She was asking for it," defense.

Now to make it even more interesting say the guy is in his 20s but the girl is 16 or 17 and lied about her age.

The authorities NEVER accept "She looked legal," as a defense. If the girl was underage, both the authorities and the jury will be more strict with the guy.

[SCRawl]

Why does the girl have to have succeeded in infecting the guy for her to be guilty of attempted murder? She still tried just as hard.

If I aim a pistol at someone's head and try to shoot him, and miss, am I not still guilty of attempted murder? Harder to prove, I suppose, but as I still possessed the required intent I'm just as guilty as the guy who didn't miss but still didn't kill his victim.

[Darth Wong]

What is this, "the bitch had it coming" defence? You're giving out free walks for homicide over someone telling you something disturbing? Talk about moral leprosy. Going to cap this off by killing some homosexuals for getting on your nerves?

Suppose we were sitting in a bar having drinks and I said "Oh by the way, I never liked you, so I put poison in your drink. Ha ha!"

You wouldn't feel any homicidal urge at all?

[Mr Bean]

You wouldn't feel any homicidal urge at all?

I made this point above, Aids is not poison, it's a death sentance, but depending on your resources it can be an extremely delayed one. While poison is as noted... poison.

If someone said ahah I put poison in your drink I would treat that the same as if someone said "Ahah, I just raped and murdered your wife/child/significate other"

That being repeat what they said in a loud voice to ensure I have some witnesses, ask them to confirm it, and if they do...
Well if their fucking kidding? They get to win a Darwin award.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Most states have it on the books that if you knowingly infect someone with AIDs you will be charged with first-degree murder.

[Justforfun000]

I made this point above, Aids is not poison, it's a death sentance, but depending on your resources it can be an extremely delayed one. While poison is as noted... poison.

Ehhh....well sort of...they actually now say that it is NOT considered a death sentence.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... A9649C8B63

It can be considered a chronic illness. Now obviously this doesn't really matter a flying fuck, or at least it doesn't in MY opinion....I'd be just as angry and upset. Anyone deliberately passing on such a potentially life-shortening condition is reprehensible.

Still the man has no right to beat her or kill her. That's the reality. He has a somewhat mitigating defence in my opinion if he truly freaks out emotionally after she spills the beans immediately after the act, but this should only indicate a call for a degree of leniency, not exoneration.

AIDS is not THAT immediately fatal, and you can't compare it to someone telling you they dumped Anthrax in your drink and you have 24 hours to live.

[Sidewinder]

AIDS is not THAT immediately fatal, and you can't compare it to someone telling you they dumped Anthrax in your drink and you have 24 hours to live.

IMHO, AIDS is significantly worse than Anthrax because if you're infected, you have to choose between dying slowly and painfully, or bankrupting yourself to buy drug cocktails to avoid a slow and painful death, which might make you wish you were dead. 24 hours of pain, followed by death, is better than ten fucking years of pain, followed by death.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Eh, if you have HIV, you got a couple years before the pain starts, so even if you can't afford the drugs, better to live those out well and then swallow a bullet.